Published 10:25 pm, Monday, June 25, 2012

"There are a lot of states that treat juveniles like adults and impose very harsh sentences ... Connecticut already knows full well this is an important issue," said Meriden attorney Jennifer Zito, immediate past president of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. "This decision just affirms their conviction."

It was unclear whether the ruling directly applies to any current Connecticut prisoners. But observers agreed the court provided further ammunition for defense attorneys seeking reduced sentences for clients convicted of crimes committed before they turned 18.

As of September, 191 prisoners out of the state's population of 17,658 inmates were serving sentences of more than 10 years for crimes that occurred in their youth.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling said mandatory life sentences for juveniles offend the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, said the decision was consistent with the court's past findings that children lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility; that they are more vulnerable to outside pressure and that their character is less formed and more open to rehabilitation.

But judges may still sentence juveniles convicted of murder to a life sentence without possibility of parole if they take into consideration mitigating circumstances.

"It's in line with a lot of enlighted people nowadays," said Waterbury attorney Leonard Crone, the head of the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. "More and more studies show that juveniles don't have developed brains ... Locking the door and throwing away the key for something done at age 14 is not the remedy."

Michael Lawlor, Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's undersecretary for criminal justice policy, said criminals now convicted in Connecticut for arson/murder and murder with special circumstances, which this year replaced capital murder, face mandatory sentences of life without parole.

Lawlor was unaware of any inmates who would be directly affected by the Supreme Court's decision. But Sarah French Russell, Quinnipiac University assistant professor of law, said she believes there are five individuals serving mandatory sentences of life without parole for committing capital murder before they turned 18.

"They would certainly have grounds for going back to court and saying my sentence is unconstitutional," Russell said.

Lawlor said Monday's ruling, combined with a pair of earlier Supreme Court decisions, raises questions in general about how to punish underage crimes.

"In recent years the court has said people cannot be executed for crimes committed before the age of 18 (and) they cannot receive life in prison for crimes other than murder. Now they cannot be kept in prison for life for murder," Lawlor said. "You could certainly argue that a kid who got a 50-year-sentence for crimes committed when 15 maybe should have an opportunity for a new sentencing. And someone may win that argument."

Commission members, including Lawlor, a vice chairman, are looking at the feasibility of allowing prisoners serving time for crimes committed before they were 18 to obtain reduced sentences after demonstrating increased maturity and rehabilitation.

Zito said it is more important than ever to grapple with these questions because Connecticut in January expanded the juvenile justice system to 17-year-olds.

"The idea is somebody -- the parole board or court -- should have some review of has this person changed? Are they at 35 the person they were at 14?" she said.

"Determining the appropriate sentence for a teenager convicted of murder presents grave and challenging questions of morality and social policy," Roberts wrote. "Our role, however, is to apply the law, not to answer such questions."